1951-05-30

Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Dickey be substituted for that of Mr. Balcom on the special committee on veterans affairs.
That the name of Mr. Jones be substituted for that of Mr. Nose worthy on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
That the name of Mr. Maclnnis be substituted for that of Mr. Thatcher on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
That the name of Mr. McLean (Huron-Perth) be substituted for that of Mr. George on the special committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for ihe Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 344 (from the Senate) to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1929.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Joseph Alfred Sabourin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 346, for the relief of Sarah Kami-chik Coviensky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Yvette Marsan Valiquette, otherwise known as Marie Fer-nande Yvette Marsan	Valiquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth McIntyre Williams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Mildred Ann Sinclair Allen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Gabrielle Robert Mallette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Archibald Kenneth MacLean.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	What is the total mileage and expenditure, by provinces, for the fiscal year 1950-51 on the trans-Canada highway?
2.	What is the total amount paid or credited to each province by the federal government for (a) construction work; (b) allowances and mileages of sections previously constructed by the provinces, for the fiscal year 1950-51?
3.	What is the amount of such expenditures and mileage, by provinces, that have been authorized for the fiscal year 1951-52?
4.	What is the mileage and cost in each province, of sections of the trans-Canada highway, for which the provinces have asked for credit or payment?
5.	Have the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government agreed on the route of the trans-Canada highway in that province? If so, what expenditures thereon have been made, and what mileage is under construction (a) to date; (b) authorized for the fiscal year 1951-52?


Mr. Winters:: 1. The mileage under construction as of March 31, 1951, and payments made by federal government to each province for work done during the fiscal year 1950-51 are as follows:
Mileage	Payments
Province	Grading Paving	$Newfoundland .	153	957,843.79Prince Edward	Island 	19	134,135.43New	Brunswick ...	30	-Ontario	145	66	2,749,328.63Manitoba 	30	44	273,958.99Saskatchewan .	151	392,169.26Alberta 	15	42	193,055.70British	Columbia ....	29	38	2,504,392.39Total 	572	190	7,204,884.192. The amounts	paid	to each	province bythe federal government	for (a)	construction
work and (b) allowance for sections

Questions
previously constructed by the provinces tor the fiscal year 1950-51 are as follows:
	(a) New	(b) Prior
Province	Construction	Construction
	$	$
Newfoundland . Prince Edward	. 957,843.79	-Island 	
New	. 134,135.43	-Brunswick . .	. 	-Ontario	. 2,749,328.63	-Manitoba 	. 245,514.99	28,444.00Saskatchewan ..	. 392,169.26	-Alberta	
British	. 193,055.70	-Columbia ....	. 2,236,587.04	267,805.53Total 	6,908,634.84	296,249.35
Note: It is difficult to estimate accurately the mileages for which claims have been allowed until all the claims for any particular section have been finally considered.
3.	No agreement is necessary between the federal government and the provinces regarding the annual construction program. Projects are planned by the provinces and are then submitted to the federal authorities for approval prior to tenders being called. Complete information regarding the mileage of new construction contemplated in 1951 has not yet been received from all the provinces.
4.	Two provinces only have submitted claims for credit or payment for work done prior to the passing of the Trans-Canada Highway Act. Manitoba has submitted claims for $297,266.84 for 49-64 miles of prior construction. British Columbia has submitted claims for $2,168,716.59 for 58-84 miles of highway, nine bridges, and overhead structures constructed prior to passage of the Trans-Canada Highway Act. The above figures represent Canada's share, which according to the terms of the agreement is not to exceed 50 per cent of the cost.
5.	No agreement has yet been concluded between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government regarding the construction of the trans-Canada highway.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-LOSS OF BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT BY FIRE
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	What was the total loss by fire of national service buildings, equipment, etc., during the year March 31, 1949, to March 31, 1950: navy, army, air force?
2.	What was the total loss by fire of national service buildings, equipment, etc., during the year March 31, 1950, to March 31, 1951; navy, army and air force?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	$1,173,861.88.
2.	$1,126,831.12-subject to change on receipt and review of investigation reports.


ENLISTMENTS OF CITIZENS OF JEWISH RACIAL ORIGIN
Mr. Courtemanche:: 1.	With the exception of those engaged in office or administration work, how many citizens of Jewish nationality are enrolled at present for active service in Korea?
2.	What percentage of the population of Jewish nationality in Canada does the above-mentioned number of enlistments represent?


Mr. Blanchette:: As there are few persons of Jewish "nationality" in Canada the questions refer presumably to racial origin. It is not the practice to keep records of the racial origin of members of the armed forces, and it is not considered to be in the national interest ordinarily to keep or publish such information.


PROPERTY AT 7 DELAWARE AVENUE, OTTAWA
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Did the government or any department or agency thereof purchase or rent the house at No. 7 Delaware avenue, in the city of Ottawa?
2.	If so, from whom, on what terms, and for what purpose?
3.	Who negotiated the sale or lease on the part of the government, on the part of the owner*
4.	Was any commission paid by the government to any person involved in the transaction? If so, how much?


Alphonse Fournier: I should like to
answer this question orally. In answer to parts 1, 2 and 3, I may say that on the 2nd of February of this year, at the request of the Department of National Defence, expropriation proceedings were filed against this property, the owner being Mr. Omanique. Since then the Department of National Defence has been negotiating as to the price. It has had a valuation made by a well-known firm in Ottawa, but the negotiations are not completed.
The answer to part 4 is no.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Diefenbaker:: How many orders in council have been passed between (a) January 1 and December 31, 1950; (b) January 1 and May 1, 1951?


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, I gather from this question that what the hon. member would like to know is the number of orders in council, not including the minutes of treasury board.


John George Diefenbaker: Including treasury board by itself-all orders in council.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Then this question might be made an order for return. There will be a statement as to treasury board minutes, and a statement as to the various summaries of orders in council that have been tabled in the house from time to time.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Balcom:: For a statement showing (a) a list of construction projects in Halifax, Nova Scotia, for which tenders were invited by the Department of Public Works, from January 1 to April 30, 1951; (b) tender number; (c) location and type of work; (d) names and addresses of those submitting tenders, and the amount of each tender; (e) names and addresses of those securing contracts, and the amounts in each case.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: For a statement showing (a) a list of construction projects in Halifax, Nova Scotia, for which tenders were invited by the Department of Defence Production from April 1 to May 26, 1951; (b) tender number; (c) location and type of work; (d) names and addresses of those submitting tenders, and the amount of each tender; (e) names and addresses of those securing contracts, and the amounts in each case.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I wonder if the horn, member would consent to letting these motions stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



AUDIBILITY OF DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister consider asking the house to appoint a committee, as was proposed toy Mr. Speaker on March 15, for the purpose of giving further consideration to the question of installing an amplification system in this chamber?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This is a matter that is particularly for the house to decide; it is not something in respect to which the government would wish to give any directive. However, I would have no objection to placing a notice of motion on the order paper, and, if and when the whips of the different groups tell me that they have arranged for the members to constitute such a committee, I could submit the motion for the consideration of the house as
Inquiries of the Ministry one upon which all hon. members, wherever they sit, would feel quite at liberty to express their own views.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask if the Prime Minister would consider having the motion go on the order paper in such a form as would permit Mr. Speaker to select the committee? It seems to me that it would be difficult for the whips to nominate a satisfactory committee. I have had the idea that Mr. Speaker might name a small committee to assist him and make recommendations.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not care to have inscribed on the order paper a motion imposing any duty upon Mr. Speaker. I can confer with him, and if it is agreeable to him that the motion toe in that form I shall put it on the order paper in that form. Otherwise it would toe in such form as to leave the matter to be worked out by the whips of the different groups.


Major James William Coldwell: Knowing the Prime Minister, that is precisely what I would have expected him to do.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO DISTRIBUTION TO PRESS GALLERY OF REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is true that the Massey report has been printed and that copies have been circulated to members of the press gallery, but that it is not to be tabled in the house until Friday?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am informed that the report has been printed, but I do not know whether it has been circulated to members of the press gallery. That certainly was not done by or on behalf of the government, if it was done. I was informed that the chairman of the commission, would have the report to present to me as leader of the government tomorrow at 12 noon. I am arranging to have a meeting of council before the afternoon sitting so that it can be transmitted officially to His Excellency the Governor General and tabled in the house at three o'clock tomorrow.

On the orders of the day:


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As a matter of personal explanation, I have just realized that in answering the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I spoke of the arrangements for the tabling of the Massey report as having been made for tomorrow. They actually have



S542 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry been made' for Friday, and I was just a day ahead in considering that Friday might be tomorrow. It is lor twelve o'clock and three o'clock on Friday that the arrangements have been made.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister examined the situation in respect of overages shown by country elevator companies in their operations over the past five years? If so, does he consider that any action is necessary in this connection?
Eight Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I have certainly looked into the matter of these overages. In the case of wheat, I find that out of 1,427,587,096 bushels of producers' wheat handled in the five-year pool, there were overages of 3,470,789 bushels, or -24 of one per cent in country elevators, and 2,151,149 bushels, or -15 of one per cent in terminals. Upon further examination I find that the bulk of these overages occurred in the crop years 1945-46 and 1946-47, which followed about three years of congested conditions in the elevators in which no weigh-over had been possible in many of the elevators. This situation was common to both the producer-owned and the privately-owned companies. Because the companies had not been able to weigh over their own houses that were congested, the overages in question actually occurred over some seven or eight years of operation rather than in the five-year pool period only.
Those who are familiar with the provisions of the Canada Grain Act know that the board of grain commissioners have no power to weigh-over country elevators or to take possession of overages that occur. I believe it would be mistaken policy to take such powers, because the principle of seizing overages implies that the crown should make good on losses. Because of the competition prevailing among the country elevator companies, the underwriting of losses would lead to competitive abuses in that direction.
Where the board of grain commissioners do have power to act is in the setting of the shrinkage allowances in determining the net weight of wheat delivered at the elevators. It is common knowledge that there is invisible loss in the handling of grain. To compensate for this, a shrinkage allowance is made on


all grain taken into the elevator. A shrinkage table is displayed in a prominent position in each elevator. From November, 1923, until the end of the 1947-48 crop year, a shrinkage allowance of one-half of one per cent on receipts of straight grade wheat at country elevators was in effect.
As soon as the board of grain commissioners were able to review the country elevator operations and found that substantial overages had occurred during the period of congestion, they lowered the shrinkage allowance on straight grade wheat from one-half of one per cent to one-quarter of one per cent, effective for the crop years 1948-49 and
1949- 50.	Operating under these reduced shrinkage schedules, country elevators showed a wheat shortage of -02 per cent on total handlings for 1948-49, and a very slight overage of -002 per cent for the 1949-50 crop season.
In these circumstances, the board felt justified in partly meeting the representation of elevator companies for increased allowance, and accordingly adjusted the shrinkage rate on wheat from one-quarter of one per cent to three-eighths of one per cent for the
1950-	51 crop year. The effect of this recent revision in shrinkage schedules will not be known until the elevators furnish their sworn statements to the board on their 1950-51 operations.
The point I am making is this. The board of grain commissioners acted over three years ago to correct a situation which was revealed when the country elevator congestion was relieved. The action they took at that time effectively wiped out the overages in the subsequent years of operation. I have every confidence in the ability of the board of grain commissioners to maintain effective oversight of this situation. As a matter of fact, I have asked the board if any further action could or should be taken, and they have advised me that no further action at this time is necessary. The whole problem of overages is reviewed annually, and will be a matter of further study at the board's tariff meeting to be held in July, when they should have the results of this year's operations.



GRAIN COMMISSIONERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: On Thursday last I addressed two questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and in his absence his parliamentary assistant answered the first one but said he would refer the second question to the minister. The second question

had to do with the annual report of the board of grain commissioners. I asked if the minister would have this report referred to the agriculture committee for the purpose of hearing evidence on overages from representatives of producer organizations and other interested parties. Would the minister care to answer that question now?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This session is dragging so badly, so little work has been accomplished and so much is left for the month of June that I think it is hardly appropriate to add the work of another committee to that already undertaken by the house. Perhaps in another year we could have the review which my hon. friend suggests.


Percy Ellis Wright: The agriculture committee is a standing committee, and it has not met for two years. I do not think it would interfere with the business of the house to have this matter placed before that committee.



HISTORIC SITES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant of the Minister of Transport. Has the department received a protest from the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire of Newfoundland with regard to the demolition of a building at Fort Amherst, St. John's? If so, what action is proposed in the matter?


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I find that the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire have written to the department in that respect, as have Premier Smallwood and several others. The department has referred the problem to the national historic sites and monuments board, and will abide by the recommendation and decision of that board.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Defence tell us why it is that for the last two or three months a list of army promotions, retirements, transfers, etc., has not appeared in the Canada Gazette?
Interim, Supply


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I shall have to look into that, Mr. Speaker.


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr. Abbott moved:: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $206,696,711.58, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items (with the exception of items 62, 121. 204 and 470) to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto, a sum not exceeding $1,578,279.67, being one-twelfth of items 41, 86, 177 , 226 , 229, 231, 233, 235 , 238, 239, 328, 394, 426 , 456, of the said estimates be granted to His Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952.
He said: Mr. Chairman, the bill to be founded on this resolution will provide for the usual one-twelfth of all the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year 1951-52, with the exception of items 62, 121, 204 and 470, on which eleven-twelfths have already been granted. An additional one-twelfth of certain special items to cover services of a seasonal nature on which heaviest payments fall due in the early part of the year is also requested. These items, as in the case of previous interim supply requests, are such items as the quality premiums on high-grade hog carcasses, administration costs, special expenditures of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys in connection with geographical surveys, and similar expenses for the Department of Resources and Development, where the heavier part of the expenditures is made early in the year.
The form of the bill is exactly the same as the bill passed at this time last year and in previous years. It will provide for carrying oni the services of the government until the end of the month of June. The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize and discuss any item in the estimates which will come up for consideration from time to time throughout the remainder of the session, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


Mr. Graydon:: I did not rise on this question when the Speaker was in the chair, because I did not wish to provoke a debate. I wish, however, to ask a question which has been asked

Interim Supply
by others on previous occasions, about a matter on which I believe the committee ought to be brought up to date. There is keen interest throughout the country in the position in which Canada has found itself with respect to emergency famine relief for India. The matter has been mentioned in the house time after time, and the Prime Minister has indicated that he will announce the policy of the government at the appropriate time. There is growing concern on the part of the people in the question whether we are missing a challenging opportunity with respect to oriental relationships with the Occident. It has been emphasized more particularly during the last few days.
The fact that the Red Chinese government has now made some bilateral arrangement with Tibet, which borders on the northern provinces of India, and that the information concerning the possibility of a highway from the eastern boundaries of Russia to the Orient itself-
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. I believe the hon. member will realize that he cannot initiate a debate on that question on the resolution which is before the committee.


Gordon Graydon: I am going to ask a question, but I wanted to give the basis upon which my question is founded. These facts being incontrovertible, and the urgency of the matter being apparent, will one of the members of the government make an announcement? Perhaps the Prime Minister is the one to whom I should have directed the question, but he seems to have been called out on some business at the moment. Perhaps some other member of the government would be in a position to say something about it, because time is running out. Canada should really make her position known. There have been some criticisms of other nations for not taking time by the forelock in connection with this problem, and I should like to have the ministry give this committee some information as to what the government intends to do to help India out of a very serious famine condition.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I want to say a word at this point concerning the somewhat abbreviated conversation I had yesterday with the minister. I want to raise once more this question of the almost fantastic surplus we have in the first month of the fiscal year, a surplus which would run over a billion dollars a year. I suggest to the minister that even after all the necessary adjustments are made, there may be considerable disturbance in the public mind. I observe that the press is already making certain references to it. So far as one may respectfully make suggestions to the press, I suggest there is now an

opportunity for the people of this country, if they are interested in this matter, to show it in no uncertain way. As the situation is now, there is every encouragement to the members of this house to press firmly the suggestion which has already been made, and with which the minister is familiar, that his addition to the sales tax is by no means necessary. I should like to warn the minister that he may hear more about that when the time comes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I shall answer that now. Yesterday, in answer to my hon. friend's question, I said that one swallow does not make a summer. If he were as familiar as I am with the proposed expenditures on defence for the coming year he would not be unduly concerned about the apparent surplus for one month out of the twelve. In case he has forgotten, I might point out to him that for the first month of the last fiscal year we had a surplus, speaking from memory, of between $80 million and $90 million. This year there is a surplus of receipts over expenditures of something in the order of $120 million. But again I emphasize the point that we are a long way from the end of this fiscal year, and many of the expenditures for our defence program are just beginning to come in. So far as I am concerned, I have nothing to apologize for and nothing to defend in the present position of my budgetary estimates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My only comment on what the minister has said is that, in so far as he gives last year as a warranty for what is done this year, the answer is not a good one, because he proved to be terribly wrong last year.


Gordon Graydon: May I have an answer to my question with respect to emergency famine relief in India?


Mr. Pearson:: Possibly I might say a word in reply to the question of the hon. gentleman, although I confess my inability to deal with this matter in all its details in. the absence of a little bit more notice than I have been given. The situation with regard to famine in India and Canada's possible contribution to the relief of that situation is briefly as follows.
As the committee knows, some weeks ago, when this matter was brought to our attention as a government, we indicated to the representative of the government of India that we would be in a position to make available to the government and the people of India low-grade wheat, No. 5 and No. 6, which was the only wheat at that time in our possession. That wheat would have been given to India as part of our contribution under the Colombo plan.

The reason we made that offer in that way at that time has, I think, already been given to the house. The Indian government at that time indicated that they would prefer not to accept the offer, because they had some doubts as to the advisability of wheat of that type getting into their rationing system. They thought that it might create misunderstanding thereby, and indicated that they would prefer to wait until better class wheat would be available from the next harvest. However, subsequently, we got in touch again with the acting Indian high commissioner in Ottawa, and with the Indian government through our representative in New Delhi, to inquire whether the Indian government would be inclined to receive as a gift-quite apart from anything we might do under the Colombo plan-a contribution of the only wheat which was available to us. We thought that if it were given in that form, it might be used as famine relief exclusively. It could go into the famine areas, be given to those suffering from famine, would not be included in the ration and might not create the difficulties that the Indian government had previously mentioned.


John George Diefenbaker: Would it be included in the amount to be given under the Colombo plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. It would be in addition to anything we might do under the Colombo plan; it would be sent to India as a gift for famine relief and be distributed as famine relief only.


Gordon Graydon: How many bushels?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We first inquired whether that procedure would meet with the wishes of the Indian government. I think it was only yesterday, or at least a day or so ago, that we received information from the government of India to the effect that while they greatly appreciated an offer of this kind, they would still prefer to wait until wheat of a better quality might be available. Possibly one reason for the stand they took at this time was an arrangement which they informed us they had been making with neighbouring countries, for the supply of additional quantities of rice which they hoped would tide them over the period of greatest danger. They had also been making arrangements for food supplies of other kinds from neighbouring countries. In the circumstances, therefore, they thought that possibly they would suspend any decision on our offer of a gift of No. 5 or No. 6 wheat. Meanwhile we have been canvassing the situation in Canada as to whether other kinds of food might be available for Indian famine relief, in particular special health foods.
Interim Supply


Major James William Coldwell: Canned milk or dried milk?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Dried milk is one of the types of food we have been looking into. That matter is still under active consideration. We have also made some inquiries as to whether it would be possible to divert to India from other customers better grades of wheat which could be replaced to those customers later on when the new crop becomes available in Canada. Those matters are still under consideration.
I therefore think I can say, Mr. Chairman, that we have not lost sight of this matter and that we are attempting to do what is possible to show in a practical way our good will to the people of India in the extremely difficult situation which faces them.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has consideration been given to the sending of medical supplies to India? In addition, I understand that there are a number of organizations in Canada which are anxious to take it upon themselves to send food and supplies of one kind or another as a gift to India. Is the government making any move towards facilitating, by way of collection, transportation or distribution over there, any gifts that may be made from Canada on an individual basis?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, we should
be glad to help in any way we can with respect to private donations or private gifts' for famine relief in India. So far as I know, that question has not yet arisen. Meanwhile, we are concentrating our efforts on trying to do what we can do as a government to help in this situation.


Major James William Coldwell: In view of the misunderstanding as to why India would not accept low-grade wheat, would it be possible for the minister to tell the committee why it is that flour extracted from these low-grade wheats is unsuitable for the type of bread that is used in rural India? I think there is a misunderstanding in the country. I have heard people ask this question: Why will they not accept No. 5 and No. 6 wheat? I believe the real explanation is that such flour as can be extracted, such as it is, cannot be used in the type of flat cake bread baked over an open fire that is commonly used in the rural parts of India.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not an authority on this matter. Maybe my friend the Minister of Agriculture knows more than I do about baking bread in India. But I am informed that the wheat which we might have sent would have been converted by the consumers in India to a 98 per cent extraction flour, known, I think, as atta, and from that into

Interim Supply
a loaf called chapatti, and that this particular kind of wheat which we would have sent to India would not lend itself to that kind of treatment.	We are also
informed that if it had gotten into the ration in the ordinary way, it would have resulted in a kind of product to which the Indians were not accustomed, and this might have created some misunderstanding. There is a technical explanation for the attitude of the Indian government in this matter; and of course we do not criticize them for that attitude.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31. 1952, the following sums be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
1.	The sum of $206,696,711.58, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the items (with the exception of items 62, 121, 204 and 470) set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952; and
2.	The sum of $1,578,279.67, being one-twelfth of the amount of items 41. 86, 177, 226, 229, 231, 233, 235, 238, 239 , 328, 394, 426 , 456, of the said estimates, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the commitee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 353, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1952.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Now, by leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, by leave.


Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
TMr. Pearson.)
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On section 4-Account to be rendered in detail.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question? There is nothing out of the way in these sections?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, they are in exactly the same form as similar provisions of bills in previous years.


John George Diefenbaker: What is this item:
To provide for quality premiums on high grade hog carcasses and administration costs, $5,536,000.
Why is this in as a supplementary request by the minister?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are asking for an additional one-twelfth there. We have already been voted one-twelfth; we are now asking for another one-twelfth, which would be for two months, but the requirements in the early months of the year, my officials inform me, are somewhat higher, and this is to enable the current payments to be made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Now, by leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That's right, by leave.


Douglas Charles Abbott: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 29, consideration in-committee of Bill No. 322, respecting the Canada Post Office-Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: Mr. Chairman,
yesterday we had a very interesting speech from the hon. member for Temiscouata, and he was followed later by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who attempted to make an attack on the hon. member for Temiscouata. He was very critical of the hon. member's remarks. At page 3532 of Hansard of May 29, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, in reference to the hon. member for Temiscouata:
There is one thing about the hon. member for Temiscouata. He does not hide his belief in the

practice of patronage. For that I suppose we should commend him, much as we dislike and deplore the practice itself.
I want the committee to note carefully the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre: "much as we deplore and dislike the practice itself," in view of what I have to say later on of the practices of the only C.C.F. government we have ever had in Canada or ever will have, namely, the government of the province of Saskatchewan.
I do not think the hon. member for Temiscouata needs any defence from anybody in this house, because he seems to be quite able to handle himself on the floor of the house. In addition, I think the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were unfair to him, because the hon. member for Temiscouata made it clear that private members should not be criticized for looking after the small post offices and those rendering public service to the people. That is what he said. He said he interfered only- he made that quite clear-when people complained, and he felt it was in accordance with his duty. He also made it clear that he replaced or recommended replacements in certain post offices only where the former Liberal appointee, for no reason whatever but politics, had been discharged by the succeeding government. These were the only cases in which he interfered at all. He also said that if there were no complaints in operation he never interfered at all, or even visited the postmasters, which I am sure some hon. members, even in the C.C.F. party, cannot say that they have not done.
He also made it clear that he had not recommended any persons merely because they were among his supporters, but only those perfectly qualified to occupy a position in the Post Office Department. That was the statement of the hon. member for Temiscouata to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre took such violent exception. But I want to repeat in this house the words of one of the oldest members in the house of the C.C.F. party: "much as we dislike and deplore the practice of patronage itself." I am going to tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that if there ever has been a government in the history of the whole of the Dominion of Canada, either provincial or federal, that has practised patronage to the hilt, it is the government of the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Sinnott:: And he knows it.


Alan Carl Stewart: And I will point out to the committee clearly some of the appointments that they have made that any reasonable member-
Post Office Act


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Perhaps I should ask the hon, member for Yorkton whether this discussion which he has initiated springs from the fact that some reference has been made on this clause to the subject to which he has referred? I have looked at Hansard, and it seems to me the bill was considered in committee of the whole only shortly before eleven o'clock last night. Therefore there was no discussion on this section pertaining to patronage, and any such discussion, if relevant, must have taken place in the debate on second reading. If it did take place at that time, the hon. member should have entered the debate then. Now, when we are in committee of the whole on section 1, he may discuss the bill generally, but such discussion must be relevant to the bill. I suggest it is not relevant to refer to what is done by provincial governments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Does the hon.
member rise to a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. Strange as it may seem, I wish to defend in part the right of the hon. member to do what he is doing. There is another point which might be raised against his present procedure, but I must draw attention to the fact that there are citations in the authorities which state that the debate on a bill through all its several stages is to be considered as one debate. There are citations which state clearly that it is possible in committee of the whole or on third reading to refer to statements made at earlier stages in the debate. Therefore, so far as that aspect of the matter is concerned I must defend the right of the hon. member for Yorkton to refer back to what was said by the hon. member for Temiscouata in the debate on second reading, as well as to what I said at that time.
There is, however, another point, and that is as to whether there is any relationship between this bill and what may or may not happen in Saskatchewan. I submit we are supposed to be talking about a bill concerning the Canada Post Office.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said that any hon. member haay speak with respect to what has been said throughout various stages of the study of a bill. The hon. member is correct. But when he refers to the right to say anything about a bill, he refers of course to anything relevant to the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.
The Depuiy Chairman: In the debate on second reading the discussion must be

Post Office Act
relevant to the principle of the bill. I do not think it is relevant to a discussion of the principle of a bill respecting the Canada Post Office to discuss the patronage system ini operation in Saskatchewan. In any case the principle of the bill is not now under discussion; that has been settled by the acceptance of second reading. The hon. member may now discuss generally what is contained in the bill, because by practice we have permitted such discussion on the first clause. However that discussion must be relevant to the bill. It was when the hon. member for Yorkton began to discuss patronage in Saskatchewan that I interrupted him.


Alan Carl Stewart: I would suppose, Mr. Chairman, that you are willing to listen to my further argument in the matter. On the first section I understand I may deal with any subject, and I would point out that under one section of the bill the Postmaster General may make appointments involving sums up to $3,000-an increased amount-without reference to the civil service commission. If he has that power, then automatically the matter of patronage comes in.
In arguing the matter of patronage, surely I should have a little leeway to show what patronage is, whether it is in Saskatchewan or in Timbuktu-so long as it deals with patronage, and how patronage can or cannot be carried out. I say that leeway is fairly important in a matter of that kind, when there is the power of patronage in the minister up to $3,000 a year. If I am not allowed to give examples of patronage, its evils, and how it is carried out, then with due respect I suggest that it would be limiting unduly my argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say one further word on the point? I submit that we are permitted to discuss patronage as it is practised by the Post Office Department, but that you, sir, should not permit me or anyone else to discuss patronage in the Department of Transport or any other federal department, or in any of the provinces. I agree with your contention, Mr. Chairman, that we have before us a bill respecting the Canada Post Office. We must stick to matters relating to the post office.	.


Alan Carl Stewart: Surely the general evils of patronage can be established only by pointing out some such lurid examples as we have in Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if you wish to let the hon. member go ahead, you will of course accord to us the same right, so that we may answer him and discuss other cases
[The Deputy Chairman.]
of patronage. I have in mind that of Mr. Marion, the Liberal M.L.A. in Saskatchewan, and so on.


Alan Carl Stewart: We are willing to do that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I have already ruled that patronage questions outside the scope of this bill are not to be discussed. As the hon. member for Yorkton has said, it may limit the scope of his speech; but I must see that the rules are observed. Therefore I shall have to ask him not to discuss patronage which may be in operation elsewhere. It must be related to whatever is in the discretion of the Postmaster General and related to the bill.


An hon. Member:: Throw that speech away.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 1 carry?


Alan Carl Stewart: I shall have to defer to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to give just a part of the speech. I will get it in on another occasion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to say a few words on this section. I should like to ask the Postmaster General one or two questions. Yesterday, as reported at page 3528 of Hansard, the hon. member for Temiscouata said:
Members of parliament, sir. make recommendations for the appointment of postmasters to minor post offices. For post offices having a gross revenue of $3,000 the appointment is made on the recommendation of a member of parliament, and above that it is by the civil service commission.
Then the hon. member said:
Well now, what I have tried to do was to make the civil service commission understand the danger of appointing one who was not fully qualified to serve the community as it deserves to be served. Until now we have been quite successful, and in my constituency the Post Office Department has been abiding by the provisions of the Post Office Act. and the Civil Service Act concerning military preference.
Then the hon. member described how he has operated in his own riding. Is there anywhere in the bill now before us a provision which says that for a post office having a gross revenue of less than $3,000 the recommendation for the appointment of a postmaster is to be made by members of parliament?


Mr. Rinfrei:: There is no direct section to that effect. However, section 5(1) states:
Subject to this act, the Postmaster General shall administer, superintend and1 manage the Canada Post Office, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may . . .
(b) appoint postmasters and assistants when such appointments are not otherwise provided for by law.
Appointments of all postmasters and assistants in post offices where the revenue

is less than $3,000 are provided by law and are governed by the civil service commission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister means in excess of $3,000?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes, in excess of $3,000 they are appointed by the civil service commission. The others are appointed by the Postmaster General. The hon. member for Temiscouata in his speech referred to members of parliament. I would say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that recommendations have been made by members of parliament, not only those on this side of the house but also those on the other side.


An hon. Member:: But are they ever taken?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes, they have been accepted. In connection with appointments, in this department we are following exactly the same rules as are followed by the civil service commission. When there are veterans on the list we took into the question whether they are receiving pensions. They have the first call. When there are no pensioners we choose the man next in line, and he would be a veteran with overseas service provided he is a resident. If there is no such person then we take the next step and choose a man who has been in the armed forces and is a resident. If there is no such man then we come to one who is a civilian resident. If there is no such person then we look for somebody else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it then that, although there is no section that specifically says that patronage is to be practised, under the subsection to which the Postmaster General referred it is possible for members of parliament to make recommendations. It appears that whether or not those recommendations are accepted and acted upon by the Postmaster General depends on a number of factors. It appears from what the hon. member for Temiscouata said last night that his recommendations are accepted pretty generally. He seemed completely satisfied with the administration of the present Postmaster General in this regard.
I have respect for the hon. member for Temiscouata, and all of us have. I know how he feels about this question. I do not think it is out of place for me to say that he has talked to me about it privately as well as across the floor of the house, and he thinks that it is the thing for a member of parliament in a constituency such as his to do, namely, to recommend to the authorities who should have these various posts. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton,
Post Office Act
interjects and asks about defeated candidates. It seems to be the practice in some places, particularly where the constituency is not represented by a government member, that the defeated Liberal candidate in the last election is asked for his recommendation.
I want to protest most strongly against the practice. I think that the whole idea of the civil service commission, as was indicated to the Canadian Congress of Labour by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, was to get rid of the practice of patronage which I do not think we should be carrying forward. I am bitterly disappointed that at this time, when we are revising and recasting the whole Post Office Act, we are carrying forward this provision, this loophole, which makes the practice of patronage still possible. It is not as vicious today as it was in the early days of this country and as it was in the early days in the United States-


Mr. Hatfield:: It is pretty bad.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but it is still pretty bad. I am thinking of that defeated candidate in New Brunswick, D. R. Bishop, who still pretty well runs the show in that part of the country.


Alan Carl Stewart: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, you have prohibited me from dealing with patronage generally; yet the hon. member's speech is dealing with patronage generally when he claims an individual runs the show.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not hear the point of
order raised by the hon. member, but I suspect-


Alan Carl Stewart: The point of order is that the hon. member is now going into the matter of patronage. He is arguing that the government is going into patronage, and he also claims that a certain man in New Brunswick, who has nothing to do with this thing, is indulging in patronage. I want to say that I know that the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan does nothing else but indulge in patronage to those who favour their opinions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I made reference to Mr. D. R. Bishop in New Brunswick because he handles patronage with respect to the Canada Post Office for that part of the country, and I have plenty of documentary evidence to prove that point. Some hon. members will recall the long story I told about this man a year or so ago, and he is still carrying on.


An hon. Member:: Stick to your own
province.

Post Office Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one thing that is
quite clear now from what has been said by the hon. member for Temiscouata yesterday, from what has been brought up by way of defence by the hon. member for Yorkton, and from what has been said by the Postmaster General. The point is clear that patronage is being practised. We do not have to argue that. When I placed questions about this matter on the order paper the Prime Minister tried to suggest to me that he did not know about patronage, but it is being practised, and is being practised in the post office. Here we are revising and recasting the whole Post Office Act in this modern year of 1951. Surely this is the time to get rid of the practice of patronage completely so far as the post office is concerned. I think it should go everywhere, but your ruling is correct, Mr. Chairman. "We are dealing here with the post office, and I shall stick to this department.
I said last night that I had been pleased to note press reports to the effect that the deputy postmaster general was endeavouring to get rid of patronage so far as the administration of that department is concerned. When I referred to that last night and wondered whether that was the reason why the hon. member for Temiscouata had made his speech, I noticed that he rose on a point of privilege. I have re-read his speech, and it looks to me as if the hon. member for Temiscouata has a quarrel to pick with the deputy postmaster general. He does not like the fact that the deputy postmaster general is trying to run his department on a basis of efficiency-superefficiency, he called it. The hon. member for Temiscouata still wants to be able to go to his political colleague, the Postmaster General, and get him to approve appointments (hat he recommends for the county of Temiscouata. I do not care who is making the recommendation, whether he is a Liberal, Conservative, a member of this party, or from any section of the house. I do not think appointments should be made that way.
I strongly protest against the whole principle of patronage. I repeat the sentiments I expressed last night, which the hon. member for Yorkton has quoted a number of times. It does not matter to me where it is shown that there is patronage. I doubt the charges the hon. member is making about Saskatchewan, but wherever it can be shown I register my protest against it. Right now we are dealing with the Post Office Department. Right now we are rewriting the Post

Office Act. Let us not carry forward this practice which is so completely out of date and so wrong in principle.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre does not wish the appointments of postmasters to be made in the way they are made at the present time, in the way he thinks they are made. There is in his mind a definition of the word "patronage" that does not seem to enter my mind or the minds of any of the officials of my department. If the hon. member will tell us what he thinks patronage is I will tell him what my definition is. We have a certain job to do, and when we have to appoint a postmaster we ask those who are in a position to tell us who are the best men to appoint. Then we send a notice to the Canadian Legion, and they have a certain time to make a recommendation to us, without any reference to the member of parliament. We wait until we get an answer from the Legion before we appoint anybody. A suggestion is made by the member of parliament, whether he be Liberal or Conservative. We have appointed many postmasters on recommendations of other than Liberal members. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could hear all the squawks we get for not having appointed persons whose applications were recommended by Liberal members, then he would have something to say. No automatic appointment is made after a recommendation made by a Liberal member. All members of parliament are on exactly the same footing.


Mr. Brooks:: No, no.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is so.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not so.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is so.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is
absolutely not a fact.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My defeated opponent has
always made the recommendations.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That may have been so under Conservative administration but it is not under the Liberal regime.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In addition, Liberal committees meet and make recommendations so far as the post office is concerned.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: There is no recommendation
made by any caucus.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I can quote instances.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: So far as the hon. member
for Winnipeg North Centre is concerned, I asked him last year and he bluntly refused to be consulted on any appointments in his

constituency. If he wants to refer to Hansard of last year he will see that he himself refused.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I still do.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: All right. Then what is
the complaint?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I contend that no member
of parliament should be consulted on these appointments.


Mr. Gibson:: Who is more competent?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Members of parliament are
the ones who are best qualified to recommend to the government who are the best persons to do the job.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then the Postmaster
General is defending patronage.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It depends on what patronage means in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Postmaster General is defending it according to his own definition.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Last year my hon. friend brought up the question of Bishop and he brought before the committee the request made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no. I did it entirely on my own initiative.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It was shown by that order paper, as the hon. member will remember, that we had not acted in the case he brought before the house. We did not follow the advice or the recommendation of Mr. Bishop at that time and we appointed somebody else.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The post office at Bath, New Brunswick, is a civil service post office with a revenue of more than $3,000. This position has been occupied by a temporary postmistress for over two years. The branch of the Legion at Bath has been trying to have this vacancy opened up.


John George Diefenbaker: I listened with interest to the Postmaster General when he outlined the circumstances connected with appointments to post offices and stated that the Legion is communicated with and names submitted by them. The Postmaster General stated that appointments to post offices with a revenue under $3,000 are made on the basis of the first preference being given to those who served overseas, the next to general ex-servicemen and finally, if there be none of those, to some other suitable applicant.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: In the first instance to
pensioners.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. In view of that statement I ask the minister how many 80709-226
Post Office Act
appointments have been made during the last two years to post offices with a revenue of less than $3,000, and of those appointments, how many were veterans? I ask that because I have before me one or more letters from Legion branches in Saskatchewan which indicate that they are rather disturbed at some of the appointments that are being made. The minister said he did not understand what patronage meant. I do not know what another person's definition would be, but to me patronage is a matter of political fitness.
If the minister is in position to give a statement such as I have asked for, then I intend to ask about certain post offices in my own province where appointments have been made on a basis which to ordinary eyes would appear to be simply a qualification on the part of the applicant of political fitness. I ask that because there may be misunderstanding. The minister has replied with such heated animation as to indicate that he feels strongly on the subject. Certainly I should like to have from him a summary such as I have asked for. The minister referred to section 5 a moment ago. This reads:
5. (1) Subject to this act, the Postmaster General shall administer, superintend and manage the Canada post office, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may
(b) appoint postmasters and assistants when such appointments are not otherwise provided for by law.
I take it that that subsection means that appointments are not required to be made under the Civil Service Act. Is that correct?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The explanatory note reads:
New. Re-establishes authority deleted in 1927 revision, latterly done by order in council.
While the minister is getting an answer to my earlier question I should like to know on what date the order in council was passed that re-established the right of the minister to make appointments except those specifically covered by the Civil Service Act and when he actually legislated respecting a matter that was deleted in the 1927 revision.


Mr. Ferrie:: Does not the veterans charter take care of the whole thing?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: My hon. friend will understand that I cannot furnish the list of appointments that he asked for, but I will see that it is prepared and supplied to him. It might delay the passage of this bill and if my hon. friend would like to have it on the estimates I shall see that it is furnished to him before that time.

Post Office Act


John George Diefenbaker: As long as it is available. 1 do not want to hold up the minister, but I would have thought he would have that when he was able to speak with such certainty on this subject and say that in every case where there was a veteran available the position was filled by such veteran; first, a pensioner; next, a serviceman with active service; next, a general serviceman and then down through the various grades of qualification that he pointed out.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The reason I spoke with such *certainty is that it is a fixed rule of the department which I know is followed. As to the second point raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre and his reference to the explanatory note, this section will re-establish an authority that was deleted in the 1927 revision. In latter years it has been done by order in council under the authority of the treasury board.


John George Diefenbaker: What date was that order in council passed?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: They are passed1 one after another, after the appointments are made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten thousand and upwards.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That authority was deleted in 1927. The civil service commission felt that it was too much of an imposition upon them to have to appoint postmasters in all these twelve thousand small post offices and they asked to be relieved of that obligation.


John George Diefenbaker: What year was that?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: 1927.


John George Diefenbaker: In what year did they ask to be relieved?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I will check the exact date. The section of the Civil Service Act that covers this is section 57A.


Heber Harold Hatfield: How long is a vacancy allowed to stay open in a civil service post office with a temporary postmaster being in charge?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The particular case referred to by the hon. member is not one where we have to advertise the vacancy as it can be filled by promotion. The assistant there is the wife of the former postmaster. She had been there for many years and she can be promoted to the position.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Would the Postmaster General read section 57A of the Civil Service Act?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes, it reads as follows:
The provisions of this act shall not apply to the position of postmaster of -any revenue post office the revenue of which does not exceed three thousand dollars per annum; but the preference

provided by section twenty-nine of this act, in favour of the persons mentioned therein, shall be applied in respect of appointments to such positions.


Mr. Shaw:: It does occur to me that the
debate in which we are presently engaged could more properly take place on section 5 (b). Since we are engaged in it now, there are two or three things which I should like to say. The admitted fact that members of parliament are consulted with respect to post office appointments-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Liberal members.


Frederick Davis Shaw: -particularly Liberal members, does not concern me particularly. This arises partly from the fact that I have realized that that has always been done, and probably will be the method employed in the future. The minister has asserted that a member of parliament is better qualified than other persons to make such recommendations. I believe that hardly includes a person who desired to be a member of parliament but was defeated. On the basis of the minister's assertion, I assume that any member would be better qualified than the hon. gentleman who had been defeated. What I object to most strongly are those cases where a defeated candidate has been able to override the decision of the minister in an appointment that has been made. I am not making specific reference to anything that has occurred during the term of the present Postmaster General, but such events did occur during the term of the former postmaster general.
An appointment was made on the recommendation of the then district director. An air force veteran, who had been so seriously injured that he could hardly be expected to carry on any other type of work, was given the appointment. There were no other applicants. It is true that it was on a temporary basis. Suddenly he found himself out on the street, even though it was admitted his services were satisfactory. When I put questions on the order paper concerning this situation, it was admitted in the answer to the final question that the change took place at the instigation of the defeated Liberal candidate. Now, that is the sort of thing I am more concerned about. I do not mind admitting that upon more than one occasion I have been consulted, let us say unofficially, with respect to a contemplated appointment to a post office position. I do not mind admitting that upon one occasion I recommended that a certain person be not appointed, knowing all the while he was a very strong supporter of mine. I well recall giving my opinion upon another occasion that a certain person was admirably suited for the position, even though I knew that person was a very strong Liberal.

I am primarily concerned about the calibre of the persons who are appointed to these positions in my constituency. No one will hear me complain, provided that individual is giving the type of service to which the general public is entitled. What I do object to is some of these defeated Liberal candidates taking it upon themselves to actually interfere after appointments have been made, and in certain cases successfully upsetting the decision arrived at.
The minister will notice that I have mentioned no specific case. I can do so, but I do not intend to do it right now. The returns are on file, but I am not going that far at the moment. So far as the district I represent is concerned, I hope that never again will I have to register a complaint about that sort of thing.


Mr. Adamson:: I should like to mention something to the Postmaster General that is slightly different, and I believe this is the section upon which to do it. While it does not concern the principle of the bill, it does definitely concern certain aspects of the postal service. I bring the matter to the attention of the committee, because I believe it concerns a general condition surrounding all our metropolitan areas. I refer to subpost offices that find themselves in rapidly growing districts, what is known as mushrooming districts. There are two in my own constituency of York West; one is Hollywood and the other is Browns Line. I have received every consideration from the Post Office Department in connection with these places.
I believe that some amendment or some consideration should be given to a provision in the act that would take care of conditions such as exist in these areas. Mr. Chairman, a sub-post office carries on very well in a store where the postal business consumes an hour or two a day; that is a suitable adjunct to the rest of the operations of that store. The district may grow tremendously, and you may find that the post office business entirely overrides the normal business of the store. What happens then? First of all the owner of the store and the owner of the sub-post office finds himself completely unable to handle the enormous increase in the volume of business, and the service to the residents in that area suffers materially. Now, that happens in the industrial areas where large industries have come in. It is very important that they be serviced, because their mail is important first-class mail. If they are kept waiting the efficiency of their operation deteriorates. I feel, Mr. Chairman, on the point of service to the public, that where such a situation exists the postmaster in 80709-226J
Post Office Act
Toronto should be empowered to make recommendations to the Postmaster General, so that steps could be taken to prevent this congested situation and the deterioration of the service.
There are one or two other things which I do not see in the bill, but which I believe militate against the postal service. As I understand, there is two per cent allowed on the sale of stamps in these sub-post offices, up to a certain amount of revenue. But then the percentage drops from two per cent to one per cent, and I would suggest that that possibly is a business practice which is not followed in any other line of business, because under normal conditions as your sales increase so your income or revenue increases.
I should like to refer now to emergency services at cost. There are many towns, particularly in the suburban areas of our major cities-it happens in my own case and I imagine it would happen in many other cases-where a firm or individual wants an important piece of mail delivered quickly. The only way that can be done is by putting on a ten-cent special delivery stamp and hoping it will catch the right mail. But, Mr. Chairman, that does not help a great deal except in your built-up areas. There are times when I myself have letters that I would willingly pay two or three dollars to have delivered in an emergency. I know of many firms who feel the same way. I should like to suggest to the Postmaster General that an extra service, at say two or three dollars for special delivery service, might be considered. I mention the case of delivering contracts where there is a deadline, or of delivering legal papers which must be in at such and such a date. I see the Minister of National Revenue looking at me; there is also the question of getting tax returns in before certain deadlines.


Mr. McCann:: For which you have had four months.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Some people are perhaps not as prudent as others. I know of business returns that have come in in the last week, and those concerned have not been able to finalize their tax returns until the last week before the deadline. They would appreciate a special service at cost-it would not matter how much it cost per letter-if it was possible to guarantee the delivery of a letter or a legal document'or something of that nature within a special short time.
I know that in the Post Office Department in England there is a certain service-it is not actually in the Post Office Department but is almost a semi-official department_of

Post Office Act
district messengers whereby you can telephone for a district messenger, and the receipt by the district messenger is legal proof of the mailing of the postal package. I merely make that suggestion because I know of several cases in which people have had to miss a deadline by a day or two because they could not get that special service.
There is another question I wish to mention, that of adequate pay for letter carriers and postal employees. I know of many many letter carriers who are seriously considering going into industry. With industry paying considerably higher wages than the post office is allowed to pay under the act or under the regulations, I feel sure that it is getting increasingly difficult for the department to keep their good letter carriers in the service. Despite the fact that they are entitled to civil service benefits and pensions, nevertheless with industry paying wages which are much superior to those it is possible for the post office to pay, I feel that some consideration might be given so that the good letter carriers may be encouraged to remain in the service.
There is another matter, namely the length of walks and the weight of the packs. I have had complaints; but 1 must say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Postmaster General that they have not been from the letter carriers themselves. I must congratulate the minister on having an extremely good and loyal bunch of servants; certainly that is so in my district. But I have had complaints from other interested citizens who have said that the letter carriers' packs have increased greatly in weight in the last few months and that there does not now seem to be any limit to the weight and size of the pack the letter carrier is expected to carry. There probably are regulations, but the complaint I have had is that those regulations are not adhered to.
There is one more thing I wish to mention. I understand that there is a regulation in the post office to the effect that no two sub-post offices may be established within a certain distance of each other. I believe the distance is a mile, although I am not absolutely certain of that.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: One-half mile.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister says it is one-half mile. When you are dealing with a densely populated area, split by two arterial roads close together, and thus there are two definite centres of population separated by a short distance, it is quite inconvenient, particularly under extremely dense traffic conditions, for people to cross these two arterial roads to do their business with the post office. I feel that, under special circumstances, the half-mile rule should be done
TMr. Adamson.]
away with. I agree that, under normal circumstances, it is quite a good rule. In one or two circumstances I know of, however, I think it could be done away with. I am speaking of the Kingsway area, where there are two main arteries; one is Dundas street and the other is Bloor street.
In making those suggestions, I want to say that I have received every co-operation from the deputy minister and from his staff. I am not complaining in any way, but I wish to bring these matters to the attention of the Postmaster General because they have been a source of great inconvenience to the citizens of my own constituency.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Before answering my hon. friend, I might tell the hon. member for Lake Centre that as to the reference I made a moment ago to the Civil Service Act, the assent was given on May 26, 1932. It dates back to that time.
I have taken note of the remarks made by the hon. member for York West. On his first point, may I say that the difficulty is not a defect of the act, as he knows, but rather the difficulty of getting the proper person as postmaster. We have given the postmaster in Toronto carte blanche to do whatever he can, and we have given him specific instructions to do everything he can to settle the matter. At the present time he is investigating the possibility of having a trailer to do the job.


Mr. Picard:: I was greatly interested in the remarks that have been made this afternoon up until now. I was, however, somewhat surprised by the objection made to the text of the new act which states that the Postmaster General shall administer, superintend land manage the Canada Post Office. The reason for my astonishment is this. We are talking a great deal about democracy. We are sending our sons to fight for democracy. The way that we apply democracy in our form of government is to entrust the administration of the country to a group of men chosen from the ranks of those who have been elected by the people at the previous election and chosen by the Prime Minister who usually heads the group which has the majority in the house. My objection is not that they would administer too much. My experience over the past is that too many of them are too inclined to pass the administration to subordinate officers or deputy ministers or officials. This clause is found generally in the acts creating all the different departments. How it is applied is another thing to look into, and that deserves the remarks made by some of my hon. friends; but the text of it and the powers it gives I think are justly given to the minister. I think

it is the duty of a minister to know his department, to administer his department. After all, he is the one who is elected. He represents the majority of the people of Canada who have sent the government here, of which he is a member, to take charge of the administration.
I do not approve the tendency of many cabinet ministers in the past-now I am not criticising anybody in particular-of having the administration carried on the shoulders of deputy ministers who may be able men, but who are not responsible to the people of Canada directly. Therefore I do not think we should be scandalized at all by the powers given to the minister. That these powers be not used solely on the basis of party politics is quite right. I would be against the appointment of government officials of a department if we took into consideration only their political affiliation, but we have the civil service commission, and they watch that very closely.
The only point of controversy seems to be the appointment of postmasters in rural areas or in small post offices where the revenue is low and where many other considerations besides ability need to be taken into account. When you appoint a postal clerk in the city he goes to the post office and works there. When you appoint a postmaster in a village he must have the post office in his own home. Therefore there are many more considerations that have to be taken into account.
I think it would be hard for anybody to suggest a system that would do away entirely with the minister having to take some suggestions somewhere from people who know the constituency well. That the man should be recommended only by a member of parliament is not enough. On the other hand, how will you establish rules to appoint postmasters in rural constituencies? First of all, you must have a man who has a home in the centre of the village. The government does not supply the post office. No matter how able a man may be, no matter how clever he may be, if he lives two miles away from the centre he will be of no use to the village if he is appointed a postmaster. Therefore you have to select a man who lives in the centre of the village. Then, you may have some people who are of relative value intellectually, but they may have had trouble in the past in their own business or otherwise; it may be that a man is not reliable.
I do not think that politics should be the main factor or should enter into consideration as the main qualification, but I do not see any objection to members of parliament, as the
Post Office Act
hon. member for Red Deer said a moment ago, having something to say. They are the ones who know the constituency. They have been elected, good or bad as we may think of one another. We have been elected in the various parties in the house by the people of Canada, and the people of Canada cannot all be wrong. We respect one another here in the House of Commons, and I think we might also respect our suggestions to the Postmaster General for the appointment of a man in a rural district. That it should be the only basis, no. I agree with that. It is not right; but I cannot find a suitable system of appointing these men through the civil service commission. I have looked into the matter myself at times when I could not get the man I wanted appointed, but I could not find a proper system of appointment through the civil service commission.
I come now to the mail couriers. On February 20, 1947, I made a good speech on the subject, but I will not repeat it today. I only want to refer the minister and the house to it. Here is another case where it is very hard to apply any rule as to how the appointments should be made. Some people say that these men should be made permanent, but permanent on what basis? Today a man is appointed on the tender system. He has a contract. The time comes when the figure at which he has tendered is not sufficient. He has equipped himself. He has the winter rigs, the snowmobiles, or whatever you call them. He has all the necessary equipment. To get a raise of $100 or $200, he has to resign. Then, new tenders are called. A new man who just wants to get the contract and does not realize the work entailed, a man who is less responsible in many ways, will submit a lower tender. He may think he can use for that purpose one of his horses and a junior son to handle the mail at ridiculously low prices. I do not think it is fair. On the other hand, what is the basis on which to choose rural mail couriers outside of politics entirely? You cannot have a competition. Would you choose the man who has the best looking horse or the best looking car to do the job? How can you judge the qualifications of a man to carry the mail in a rural district? We now do it by tenders which is a suitable way when the contract is vacant by expiration or if a man wants to resign his job. If he resigns his job, very well. But when there is a need for reclassification will you force the man, as under the present law, to let tenders be called and take the risk of having gone to all this expense to equip himself well, and lose the contract to an irresponsible person?

Post Office Act
In this regard I think we have to follow the example of what happened when the department resorted to the sort of system which is envisaged here, namely, that of the Postmaster General adjusting prices up to a certain amount? During the war that was done under the War Measures Act. I think most hon. members will agree that there were no abuses when the prioes were reclassified, and I may say that we had a difficult time to get them raised. I think a given price in the district was more or less understood as being fair, and an amount much below that price was raised to the average price by the department officials. I have done that in a number of cases without ever going to the Postmaster General. I am not talking against any of those who had the job before, but I did not care to go there because I thought I would rather go to the official who knew that particular branch quite well and appeal to his good sense and show the iproblem to him. In this regard I may say that in my province, and I think throughout Canada, the people have confidence in the present Postmaster General. He is a man of intelligence and integrity. He is a hard-working man.
I would not say he is the first Postmaster General who knows about his department, but he works very hard to get to know and understand the whole working of his department, and I think it is for the good of the country that a member of the government should go so deeply into his own department as to know what it is all about and what is going on. He should be congratulated on that. I do not think anybody here need worry about the provision under which the minister can do these things, because we had an example, as I say, of what happened under the War Measures Act. The cost of living was increasing. There was difficulty in getting material, and the men were asked to carry the mail over winter roads, over hills and far distances at very low prices. There was no way for them to get a reclassification in their prices under the Post Office Act. Reclassifications were made, if I remember correctly, in a number of cases under the War Measures Act. I have yet to hear of any injustices being done or that prices were very high. We had to fight every time to get very meagre increases from the department's officials. And I think it is right; they have to make sure no abuses are committed.
I admit however that it is not fitting to place in the act anything detrimental to the good of the country, or to leave in it any implication that there is danger of patronage

ruining the department. I do suggest however that the elected representatives of the people are the ones who would know something about their constituencies, and who would be best able to advise the minister and to express their opinions respecting matters affecting their constituencies. That is particularly true of hon. members who have returned to the house on many occasions. I suggest that they are well informed in matters affecting their constituencies and are often better informed than officials stationed at Ottawa who must pass judgment on cases concerning which they have received a meagre report from an inspector who may have spent no more than half an hour in the locality in question. On the other hand the member may have lived there all his life, or at any rate he would know it well.
I say in conclusion therefore that I have no fear for the fate of the country, even if the bill is passed as it now stands.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Mr. Chairman, I have no
objection to the Postmaster General's consulting members of parliament, but I do object to his consulting and accepting the recommendation of defeated candidates. I had an instance in my constituency where, shortly before the Christmas holidays, civil service postmasters sent to the post office inspector at Saint John a request for assistance during the Christmas season. Along with the request they sent in a list of names of experienced persons, those who had had experience in, and on former occasions had worked for, the Post Office Department.
About a week before the Christmas rush began they received a wire from the director of postal services at Ottawa in which it was pointed out that the defeated candidate would pick those who would furnish the help for these post offices. Why was that done? Why was not the list accepted as it had been before? Why did the director of postal services send a wire to the civil service postmasters stating that the defeated candidate would choose the help during the Christmas season? As it turned out, he chose people who had not had experience.


Mr. McLure:: Mr. Chairman-


Heber Harold Hatfield: I want an answer from the
Postmaster General.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No such instructions ever
went from the department here. It might be that the defeated candidate had himself sent certain suggestions. But certainly they were not sent by the department at Ottawa.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Do you want me to furnish the telegram from the director of postal services? I will try to furnish that telegram.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I would like to see it.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Of course I do not have it
in my desk, but I can get it. 1 have seen the telegram, myself.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I would like to see it.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Well, I will try to get it.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Would you, please.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I do not like to get anyone
into trouble.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words concerning the subject now before the committee. I was disappointed that we had not even begun discussion of the estimates for the Post Office Department before having this bill presented to us. I would say to the Postmaster General that the bill would have had easier passage if the estimates had been approved. We find however that the bill is presented before the estimates; why, I do not know. The house has been in session for eighty days, and there has been ample opportunity to have brought at least some of the estimates before the committee.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Motions to go into committee of supply have been blocked consistently.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister has had eighty days in which to prepare.
It is my understanding that the present measure scraps completely the old act. If in this bill some portions of the old act are embodied, they appear here only after a thorough process of face-lifting and varnishing so that, as I see it, they will give far greater control and power to the Postmaster General and his officials, or directly to the government itself. The regulations will come up from time to time as discussion of the bill proceeds.
One subject that has been discussed for years, and mentioned again yesterday by some hon. members, was that of the injustices done to rural mail couriers. After reading the bill I am convinced that the injustices they have suffered will now be worse than ever, because we will find when we discuss the regulations that control is now entirely vested in the Postmaster General.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Up to $1,000.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When I first discussed the matter in 1945 or 1946 the then postmaster general promised a committee to look into the matter of rural mail couriers. That committee never was set up, and these matters have had to be discussed privately. The problem grows worse and, because of the measure of inflation we now have, the condition with respect to tenders and contracts
Post Office Act
is not improving. When an effort is made to get low tenders someone is going to be scalded in the operation.
I believe I can speak with most authority about my own constituency, because I know the conditions there so far as the rural mail couriers are concerned. In the dual constituency of Queens we have seventy-nine rural mail couriers, and in addition we have five districts in which there are twenty-six couriers, making a total of one hundred and five.
I should like first to deal with contracts in my constituency that have been let for distances ranging from six miles up to fifty, and in this connection I should like to place on record some of the dealings concerning the men employed. I would draw attention first to what might be called inconsistencies, or perhaps discrimination, that exist in connection with the tenders and contracts awarded. These men are all responsible and trustworthy, and I should like to mention a few of them in particular.
I want to mention one in particular in the constituency of Queens, and I should like the Postmaster General to consider whether or not it is fair treatment. I do not wish to mention names so I will call it exhibit No. 1. Mr. A, a courier, drives eighteen miles, serves fifty-nine boxes and receives an annual fee of $1,560. Mr. B, no distance from this other man, drives 17-5 miles, serves forty-two boxes and receives $591.27. For driving half a mile farther A gets a lot more money. It is true he serves seventeen more boxes but for driving half a mile more and serving seventeen more boxes he gets $969 more than Mr. B. I should like the Postmaster General to say whether that is fair treatment. Another point I should like to make is that the man who is receiving the highest payment is not getting one nickel too much for the service he is rendering.
He receives $1,560 for making six trips a week or approximately 310 trips in a year for which he receives the princely sum of $5 a day. If he uses a car, we all know what the expenses of operation would be and the depreciation; but if he uses a horse and carriage in the summertime and a horse and sleigh in the winter there is also a cost there. A horse cannot be fed at the present time for less than $1 a day, and in addition there are other costs. The man would only be receiving at the highest $3 a day for wages for himself. Contrast that with the wages of the employees in the department, and you will find that this man even at the highest price is only getting a bare living wage.
What about the other poor fellow with his contract for 17-5 miles? For doing almost

Post Office Act
the same work they only pay him $590 or $1.90 per day for himself and his horse. He would not be able to buy a half ton truck because at the end of four years he would not have the truck paid for even if the whole amount he received was paid on it. There must be some way to overcome this situation. Such great discrimination should not exist.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the frequency the same in the two cases?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Yes.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Six times a week in both cases?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: 
Mr. Warren:: On tender.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: On tender. For the longer routes of 30 and 32 miles there is a discrepancy of $865. Surely there must be some other system by which all individuals could receive fair treatment. I know some of these men who tender for these contracts. I am thinking particularly of two of them who have lower paid contracts. They have no fight in them. I went to one man whose contract was coming up again and I suggested that he should not accept such a low price when John Jones ten miles away was getting twice the money for performing half the service. He did not put up the fight he should have and the department now hires him at starvation wages.


Ralph Melville Warren: On his own tender.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It is not fair. 1 do not think there are any hon. members of this house who would want such things carried on by a government of which they are members. There are other things I should like to deal with but perhaps I can take them up when we are on other sections of the bill

But I do want to refer to the postal rate on newspapers. This was dealt with yesterday by some speakers, but I do not believe the position of newspapers in my province of Prince Edward Island can be compared with the position of newspapers in the larger centres. There is one newspaper in Prince Edward Island with a circulation of 13,000 or more which is a fairly large circulation in a province with the population of Prince Edward Island. Of that total circulation of 13,000, 8,000 are delivered through the post office at Charlottetown for which they pay an average rate of $40 per day.
Under the new legislation they will have to pay 4 cents, which means that their daily cost will be $90 to $100 for every day except Sunday. This is more than double what they pay now as their rate is being increased 166.6 per cent. That is beyond all reason for a newspaper providing news throughout the constituency and to all parts of the island. No newspaper in a province like Prince Ediward Island can accept that. It will have to find some other way of getting their papers to the public.
As a solution I suggest to the Postmaster General that he institute a zoning system for the carriage of newspapers similar to that in effect for parcel post. Such a system would give this newspaper a chance to live. When you consider that a newspaper that distributes 8,000 copies through one post office must pay that office $50 a day, sufficient to pay three or four employees, it means something. To ask 166-6 per cent more for providing the same service is beyond all reason.
I understand that the minister is going to give this matter serious consideration. I advise him to do so before Friday because I understand they are going to come before him. He should adopt something that will be agreeable to these newspapers who are to be penalized by this extra expense. Another item I should like to deal with at some time is the commission paid on the sale of postage stamps. It may not be possible for the minister to reply to the two matters I have brought up, but I would like him to look into them very carefully.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: First I should like to deal with the matter of the rural mail couriers. The position of these couriers is the result of the tender system. All the cases that have been cited are under tender. The different routes have different characteristics that must be considered, not only by the department but by the person making the tender. The length of the route is one factor, the number of boxes is another; then the type and variety of equipment necessary to operate the route 80709-22?
Post Office Act
must be considered, as well as the condition of the roads and the volume of the mail; consideration must be given to the time of day when the service is required, to the climatic conditions, to the availability and use of equipment, to the necessity of combining the route with other types of transportation, and to general economic conditions. All these questions have to be taken into consideration by the person making the tender for a particular route. The route immediately next to it might be completely different, but in each case it is the person offering the tender to the department that must make the appraisal of the conditions of that particular route. The department receives tenders from various persons, and chooses the lowest of those tenders. The department cannot be accused of imposing a rate on one particular courier, because he is the one who has made the offer. If his offer is too low he has the sole responsibility for that condition.
A long time ago the department realized that the tender system was not the best system that could be devised. We have been looking at various ways of curing the situation. We thought of a zoning system, but that would be still worse than the situation as it exists today. If we were to level off all the contracts in one given area, that would mean that those which were above the average before the levelling off would receive less than they were entitled to receive, whereas those below the average would get more than they were entitled to get. There would be a discrepancy, and there would be injustice. That was one of the reasons for suggesting section 23 in the postal act. We hope that it will produce the necessary results.
The hon. member for Queens said that in 1945 my predecessor suggested a committee be formed, and after that nothing happened. I remind the hon. member that in 1946 the Supplemental Payments Act was introduced, and bonuses were given to all the couriers who applied for them. In the end, about eighty per cent of the couriers did.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That only went to a few people at first, until we got wise to it and had it applied to all of them.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: On March 31, 1949, when the law was finally repealed, eighty per cent of all contracts had been re-adjusted.
Dealing with rates on newspapers, the hon. member suggested a zoning system. We have examined the question of zoning newspapers. If a system similar to the parcel post zoning system were adopted, the rates now suggested for newspapers would be applied to the first zone. Any additional zone would involve an extra charge, because we have to meet

Post Office Act
the deficit that we have. The purpose of the proposed rate is to reduce the deficit in handling newspapers and periodicals. Unless the additional zones in the zoning system produced the additional revenue the purpose of the new rates would be lost. The extra charges would fall chiefly on the national magazines, as those are the publications which have dominion-wide distribution. They are possibly less able to bear the additional charges than are the large dailies, distribution of which is chiefly restricted to the province of publication or the adjacent province.
Zoning would involve increased costs to the department, as it would be necessary to segregate newspapers according to zones so as to check the weights and charges involved. It would also mean extra cost to the publisher, as he would have to segregate the newspapers according to zones and calculate the postage at the different postal rates in effect. In the United States, where zoning has been adopted, the deficit for second-class material is over $160 million per year. While it is not intended for one moment to attribute this loss to zoning, there is no doubt that some of it is caused by extra administration and handling costs which the zoning arrangement entails.
There is a final argument against zoning. In my opinion the zoning of newspapers in this country would create a balkanization of Canada. At the present time the Post Office Department is helping to a great extent in the dissemination of news. There is nothing in the rates that would prevent a paper from British Columbia going to the province of Quebec or a paper from Halifax going to Toronto. The rates are the same. It is in that way that the thoughts of the people out west will be known by those in the east, and vice versa. If we were going to make small states of each province, or if we were going to make small areas of about two hundred miles, I am sure that the newspapers of the area would remain in that area. I am absolutely opposed to that because it would be against the unity of Canada.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I suppose the minister is going to do away with the zoning for parcel post?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is a commercial proposition which has nothing to do with the dissemination of news.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: We know that, but you could have zoning for newspapers in certain localities. Mention has been made of the large publications from Toronto and Montreal. They are sent all over Canada, so to speak, but why put the same regulations into effect for the smaller ones? For instance, in our province you do not even give us the same

number of officers to look after our affairs as you do in the other provinces. We will leave that out of consideration for the moment, though, and deal with that later.
When the Postmaster General mentioned these contracts, and the fact that consideration had to be given to road conditions, weather conditions and so on, whether it was a turnpike road or a hard-surfaced road, the cases I cited which had these great differences had the same conditions.


Ralph Melville Warren: You pick them out.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Take a look at yourself when you go out, will you? The conditions are the very same. I hope the Postmaster General will consider this when dealing with our province.


Mr. Fair:: May I ask the Postmaster General whether there has been any general increase during the past two years in the cost of rural mail routes? If there has been, what was the extent of it?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Does the hon. member mean the tendency?


Robert Fair: Yes.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The figures I have here are from March 31, 1949, when the Supplemental Payments Act ceased to operate to date and the tendency would be approximately seventeen per cent higher than it was at that time on similar tenders.


Robert Fair: Then may I ask what happens when some contractors supply tenders containing increases which the department thinks too high? Do they accept the lowest tender, or what happens?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The officials of the department have a fairly good idea of the value of a route. When they think that all the tenders are too high, they go back to all the tenderers at the same time and ask for a revised tender.


Robert Fair: If they do not get a tender that is satisfactory, what happens next?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: When all the tenderers have had a chance of reducing their tender and the official is still of the opinion that the tender is too high, the service has to stay in abeyance until we can locate a proper tenderer.


Robert Fair: I am glad to have the statement the Postmaster General has given just now. There is another small matter I wish to mention. I am not complaining about it in any particular manner, but I believe an improvement could be made and the revision of the rural directories brought up to date better than they are. On certain occasions

I have sent out some literature to my constituents and from time to time I get a stamp on the envelope saying: "Please revise your mailing list". If my understanding of this matter is correct, the revision is made by the postmaster in each particular district. Apparently it is either being left undone or not being brought right up to date. I wonder whether the department could see that some better attempt is made to bring this revision up to date?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: We will do that.


Mr. Pearkes:: By this evening's paper I notice that a uniform postage rate is being established in greater Ottawa. Is the same principle being applied in other cities? For instance, will the same principle apply in the city of greater Victoria? There a person may live at a certain number, say, on Quadra street and receive his mail for three cents, but if he happened to live at a slightly higher number, a hundred yards or so farther up, he would have to pay the four cents. Anyone looking up the address in the telephone directory would see the two numbers on Quadra street. But the person addressing the letter would not have the faintest idea whether it was to be a three cent stamp or a four cent stamp which would have to be placed on the mail. I hope it will be possible to apply the same principle to a city like Victoria.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am sorry to say that I have not as yet seen the Ottawa evening paper, but I am sure of one thing and that is that I have not issued any directive in that connection. I could not do so because under the present act I have not the necessary power. Only when the bill is sanctioned will I have the power of establishing or altering postal rates. I do not know where the reporters got that information. They certainly did not get it from my office.


George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps I have given the wrong impression. The actual wording is "was in prospect today".


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is different.


George Randolph Pearkes: I hope the same bright prospects will be held out for Victoria.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I wish to protest against this increase in the postage rate on daily newspapers and weekly newspapers; but I especially protest against the increase in the rate on weekly newspapers. I think this increase is going to put the newspapers practically out of business. The radio has practically put them out of business. The C.B.C. do not pay their way. Why should the Post Office Department and the postal services do so? I consider them as a service to the country. I never expected that they would ever pay 80709-227J
Post Office Act
their way. I thought it was a service that was given to the people of the country. Why should the Post Office Department be obliged to raise their rates in order to pay their way when a great many other departments do not pay their way? They have a deficit. The radio has done a great deal of harm to both the daily newspapers and the weekly newspapers. A great many people do not take a newspaper at all now. The newspaper is extremely important to the people all across Canada. I want to make a protest against the increase in the rates on both daily and weekly newspapers, because they render a service to the people. I would point out that the C.B.C. do not pay their way. Why should the Post Office Department have to pay their way?


Mr. Balcer:: I should like to be on record as opposing the new increase in rates for daily and weekly newspapers. I am opposing the increase as a Quebec member, because I think this new amendment will affect my province more than any other in Canada. As we all know, in the province of Quebec the daily papers are confined to the four largest cities: Montreal, Quebec, Three Rivers and Sherbrooke. As a result, most of their distribution-at least outside Montreal-is done through the mails, and all the literature and news that the rural people of my province read must go through the postal service. I realize that some people may say that our dailies are good business concerns; but it must also be remembered that they are really rendering great services in giving us the news and some good editorials.
I think the rural people deserve better treatment than they are getting, because we can be sure that in the end these increases will be borne by the ordinary people. In many places the newspaper is about the only literature and the only news service that the people can afford. I want to protest against this increase, in particular with regard to the small dailies. I know that in Montreal we have a few dailies which are good newspapers but which have small circulations. The main circulation of some of them is outside the city of Montreal, and they depend to the extent of more than 50 per cent on their rural customers. These newspapers are rendering a real service to the country and to their communities. I would not be surprised if the new increase in the rates would put them out of business completely. I think it is unfair to the papers, to the newspapermen and the various employees who are working in their plants.
The minister has rejected the zoning proposition with regard to these new increases in rates. One of his arguments was that it was a great thing for national unity that

Post Office Act
somebody from Prince Edward Island could receive a daily newspaper from Vancouver. But we must not forget that a daily, coming from Vancouver through the mail, will get there about eight or nine days later; and the news will be rather stale by then.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Twenty-four hours after
mailing, by air mail.


Léon Balcer: Air mail will make it a fairly expensive newspaper, and it would not be of any service at all. I think this argument based on national unity is just a big excuse. I hope the minister will reconsider his decision and will treat the rural people in the same way as the city people are treated.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Chairman, I have
had considerable criticism to oiler with regard to the Post Office Department; but at this time I am happy to be able to congratulate the minister on one important step. I was happy to hear him make the statement last night that the letter carriers who have been working for longer than eight hours a day may rest assured that they will be paid for the extra hours worked. I was also very happy to learn that steps are being taken to rectify a situation which exists in the Toronto area regarding mail delivery service. I am quite sure that nothing that the department has done since the institution of the one delivery a day system will do more to raise the morale of the employees than will the assurance which the minister gave the house last night regarding the accumulated overtime which these men whose walks have not yet been checked are building up for themselves and will receive when their walks are adjusted.
I want to assure the minister that the situation as far as the Toronto postal service is concerned is still bad. It has deteriorated within the past two months. I myself have had occasions when letters posted in our post office in the building, letters that I posted on Tuesday, were not delivered in Toronto until Saturday morning. I have had a number of instances of that kind. I have today one example that I presume is an accident of some kind. I received a letter today that I mailed here in the post office on February 3. It went through the Ottawa post office on February 3. The first Toronto date stamp on it is May 17, three and a half months after. The addressee had moved in the meantime. The letter that was stamped in Toronto on May 17 returned to me this morning with the Ottawa stamp, May 30. That I take it is one of those accidents which should not occur in the post office but which probably do, and would under any system. I take it that is an exception, but the length of time which is required
(Mr. Balcer.]
for the ordinary daily mail to be delivered in Toronto is rather exasperating.
Businessmen tell me that if they want a letter from Ottawa delivered in Toronto the following day, which has been the usual practice for years, they must now use the special delivery stamp to assure that the letter is delivered within twenty-four or thirty-six hours after it is mailed in Ottawa. Therefore there is a real need for a thorough check-up on the service in the Toronto district. I am quite confident that the restoration of the morale of the post office employees will do more to improve that service than anything else will.
Reference has already been made to the wages which letter carriers are receiving. I think the minister will probably have to face up to the question that in the competition which the post office is meeting today in regard to employment more and more difficulty will be experienced in getting reliable letter carriers or to retain in the service many of his best and most experienced men at their present wages. The minister will agree that in the Toronto district there have been, within the past two or three months, a considerable number of resignations by letter carriers who up to a few months ago regarded themselves as being permanently employed in the Post Office Department, and were satisfied with their working conditions, but who have since resigned because of the upheaval which has taken place within their work. I feel as sure as an earlier speaker who threw out certain suggestions that the minister may have to give consideration to a revision of the wages which are being offered today in the advertisements for letter carriers, and that revisions will be needed to restore the efficiency of the department.
While I am very happy to hear that these men will receive overtime pay, I want to remind the minister that if this were a private enterprise company or an industrial employer they would think in terms of overtime pay not at regular rates but at time and a half, and in some instances double time. There are very few industries in the country today, very few industries are left, in which employees are required to work three or four hours a day overtime without getting more than regular overtime pay for those overtime hours.
The debate on the existence of patronage in the Post Office Department reminded me of my first experience seeking employment in the Canadian post office back in my undergraduate days nearly forty years ago. During the Christmas holidays I applied for a job assisting in mail delivery. At that

time there was a Conservative government in power in Ottawa. The Conservative candidate in the ward of the city in which I resided had been defeated in the election.


John George Diefenbaker: That was before the
establishment of the civil service commission by a Conservative government.


Joseph William Noseworthy: When I went to the post office and applied for the job I was directed to apply to the defeated Conservative candidate. That was nearly forty years ago. I judge that the debate this afternoon would indicate that the Liberal regime has not improved much upon the old Conservative regime of that day, and that the government still finds patronage a very useful political weapon.
There is just one other matter that I should like to call to the attention of the minister. In previous debates on the Post Office Department I called attention to the fact that neither in Forest Hill village nor in York township have we as yet a single postal station. Here is a community of over 100,000 people. Their postal stations are situated in the municipality of the city of Toronto. There is a real need for one or two postal stations north of the present postal station on St. Clair avenue west and west of the present postal station on north Yonge street. Because Toronto happens to envelop the village of Forest Hill and York township the people in those two municipalities must travel to city post offices to transact any post office business that cannot be carried on in the small sub-post offices located in stores throughout the riding. I know surveys have been made and various reasons have been given.
During the war years no new post offices could be constructed, but I have heard of some being built since the war. I sincerely hope there is no relation whatever between the fact that neither Forest Hill nor York township has a postal station and the other fact that that particular riding has not at any time in its history elected a Liberal to the House of Commons. I trust that is not a factor in the department's refusal to give us a postal station in one or both of those municipalities.
I call this matter to the Postmaster General's attention once more in the hope that, since the population in these municipalities has grown, we may have another survey.


Mr. Pouliot:: Would not the granting of
the hon. member's request by the Postmaster General be one act of patronage about which he complains so much?
Post Office Act


Joseph William Noseworthy: No. If a member of
parliament has any rights at all, then surely it is his right and privilege to bring to the attention of the department the needs of his constituency. My objection to political patronage is to those instances where political affiliations of the applicant are the first and determining factors in an appointment. For instance, I find that applicants in my riding who went last week to secure appointments to assist in taking the census were asked first of all: What is your political affiliation?


The Chairman:: Order; we are discussing
a bill concerning the post office. Shall the section carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: Before it carries I should like to know from the hon. member whether he makes a distinction between requests made during a speech delivered in the house and requests made privately to the Postmaster General. According to what he has said one would conclude that if he makes a request in a speech recorded in Hansard, it is not patronage; but, according to him, if he writes to the minister or asks orally to have the same thing done, it is patronage, if granted.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I made no such distinction. I do not hesitate to say that on more than one occasion I have written to the Postmaster General asking that a survey be made of my riding, and that consideration be given to granting us a post office.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Has consideration been given?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I made my objection
clear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Excuse me, but it is not
clear at all.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It is clear to everybody
else.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not clear at all. It
would seem that so long as the hon. member makes a request, it is not patronage; but if a member supporting the government makes a similar request it is patronage. I am sure that even if a Progressive Conservative member makes a request to the government, it is patronage that must be condemned: the only thing that is right, the only thing that is honest, the only thing that can be done in the public interest, according to the hon. member and some others in his group, is what is being asked for by the C.C.F,
Let us look at what happens in Saskatchewan-how the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Social Crediters are martyrized by the government of Saskatchewan.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. We are discussing the post office bill. Shall the section carry?

Reports and Papers


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



REPORTS AND PAPERS

Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker,
may I be permitted to revert to motions. On behalf of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) I desire to lay on the table one copy in English and one in French of the annual report of the Department of Labour for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 1951. The report
of the director of vocational training, for the same period, which in former years was tabled separately, has been included in the annual report.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will go into supply and take up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Resources and Development.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
3S65
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 31, 1951